DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed October 31, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are pending in the application. Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 113596678 A, hereinafter "Wang") in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0131805 A1, hereinafter "Yang"), and further in view of Peng et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 110818991 A, hereinafter "Peng").
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a composite diaphragm (a three-layer composite diaphragm, Para. [0047]), comprising:
an adhesive layer (adhesive layer, Para. [0047]); and
at least two rubber layers (two rubber layers, Para. [0047]);
wherein adjacent two layers of the at least two rubber layers are stacked, and bound and fixed through the adhesive layer (the adhesive layer is arranged between the two polyester-based thermoplastic vulcanized rubber layers to connect the two polyester-based thermoplastic vulcanized rubber layers together, Para. [0047]); each of the at least two rubber layers is prepared by crosslinking of a rubber material and a vulcanizing agent (the rubber layers prepared by crosslinking of rubber material and vulcanizing agent, Paras. [0048] and [0049]); and each of the at least two rubber layers comprises:
100 parts by weight of an ethylene-acrylate rubber (the rubber may include ethylene-acrylic rubber, Para. [0037]; and has 100 parts by mass, Para. [0039]);
0-100 parts by weight of a nano filler (filler is preferably 5 to 30 parts, Para. [0044]);
1-8 parts by weight of the vulcanizing agent (vulcanizing agent added is preferably 0.5 to 5 parts by mass, Para. [0039]);
0.2-6 parts by weight of an anti-aging agent (antioxidant [anti-aging agent] addition amount is preferably 0.5 to 10 parts by mass, Para. [0041]); and
1-10 parts by weight of an internal releasing agent (the lubricant [internal releasing agent] is 0.5-5 parts, Para. [0043]).
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 10-100 u m and a glass transition temperature of -50~50°C; each of the at least two rubber layers has a thickness of 10-100 um and a hardness of 10A-80A.
However, Yang teaches wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 10-100 μm (the adhesive layer 3 has a thickness in the range of 5-60 μm, Para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the composite diaphragm (as taught by Wang) to include the adhesive layer with thickness range of 10-100μm (as taught by Yang). Doing so improves the stability of the diaphragm and reduce distortion thereby improving the sound quality (Yang, Para. [0005]).
However, Peng teaches a glass transition temperature of −50~50° C (glass transition temperature range of the diaphragm is: -50-0°C, Para. [0072]); each of the at least two rubber layers has a thickness of 10-100 μm (thickness of rubber layer is 10 μm-200 μm, Para. [0098]) and a hardness of 10A-80A (hardness of the ethylene vinyl acetate rubber is in the range of 30-95A, Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite diaphragm (as taught by Wang in view of Yang) to include the glass transition temperature of −50~50° C, rubber layer thickness of 10-100 μm and hardness of 10A-80A (as taught by Peng). Doing so the diaphragm maintains a high elastic state at room temperature and has good resilience (Peng Para. [0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein each of the at least two rubber layers further comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber, natural rubber, acrylate rubber, ethylene-vinyl acetate rubber, nitrile rubber and hydrogenated nitrile rubber (Wang, Paras. [0012] and [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein the adhesive layer is selected from the group consisting of an organic silicone adhesive, an ultraviolet (UV)-curable adhesive, a hot melt adhesive and a combination thereof (Wang, silicon adhesive, Para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein the nano filler is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, white carbon black, talcum powder, kaolin, silicon micro-powder, calcium carbonate, clay, montmorillonite and a combination thereof (Wang, Para. [0044]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein the vulcanizing agent is selected from the group consisting of 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-trithiol, a polyamine, an ammonium carboxylate, dithiocarbonate, phthalic anhydride, imidazole, guanidine, sulfur, a peroxide and a combination thereof (Wang, Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Yang and further in view of Peng teaches wherein the anti-aging agent is selected from the group consisting of anti-aging agent 4020, anti-aging agent 3100, anti-aging agent TMQ, anti-aging agent MB, anti-aging agent SP, anti-aging agent 445 and a combination thereof (Wang, anti-aging agent includes one of antioxidant N-445, antioxidant 246, antioxidant 4010, antioxidant SP, antioxidant RD, antioxidant ODA, antioxidant OD, and antioxidant WH-02, preferably antioxidant WH-02.Para. [0041]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein the internal releasing agent is selected from the group consisting of stearic acid, stearamide, paraffin, methyl silicone oil, polyoxyethylene octadecyl ether phosphate and a combination thereof (Wang, internal releasing agent includes one of stearic acid and stearate, octadecylamine and alkyl phosphate, and α-octadecyl-ω-hydroxypolyoxyethylene phosphate, preferably stearate, Para. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein a layer structure of the at least two rubber layers is formed by calendering or coating (Wang, rubber layer formed by calendering, Para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches wherein the composite diaphragm is prepared by lamination of the adhesive layer and the at least two rubber layers (Yang, composite diaphragm 1 is formed by a lamination method, Para. [0052]) and hot compression molding (Wang, the composite diaphragm is prepared by hot compression molding, Para. [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the composite diaphragm (as taught by Wang) to include lamination of the composite diaphragm (as taught by Yang). Doing so the diaphragm structure has good strength, elasticity and thermal stability (Yang, Para. [0101]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng teaches a sound-generating device, comprising: the composite diaphragm of claim 1 (Wang, loudspeaker, Figs. 2 and 3, Paras. [0025], [0026], and [0077]).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claim 1, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark pages 4 and 5), the amended claim 1 differs from Wang's technical scheme in at least the following features: the thickness of the adhesive layer is 1 0μm-1 00μm; the thickness of the rubber layer is l0μm-l00μm. The technical problem addressed by these distinguishing features is: how to ensure high damping and low distortion while adjusting the total thickness of the composite diaphragm as required.
Secondly, Yang discloses the thickness of the adhesive layer, without specifying the thickness of a single rubber layer or the technical effects achieved by stacking multiple membrane layers. Peng discloses a rubber diaphragm thickness of 10-200 µm, but this thickness refers only to the overall thickness of the diaphragm, without specifying the individual thicknesses of each membrane layer.
Therefore, since neither Yang nor Peng simultaneously specifies the thicknesses of the adhesive layer and rubber layer in the diaphragm, the technical solutions of Yang and Peng cannot achieve the technical effects attained by the technical solution of this application.
In response to applicant’s arguments above, independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng.
Yang teaches the thickness of the adhesive layer (Para. [0038]).
Peng teaches the thickness of the rubber layer (Paras. [0026] and [0098]).
The combination of the teachings of Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng renders independent Claim 1 obvious.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., high damping and low distortion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng is maintained.
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng.
The rejections of Claims 2-7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang, and further in view of Peng is maintained.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691